[Seaside] Only the browser can have initiative to evaluateajaxian updaters?

[Lukas Renggli]

>         a) now that the pros are known what are the cons of Comet in Seaside
> (in general)? Why you won't use Comet?

Resource and cpu hungry. Requires a special server. Probably doesn't
work trough Apache and Proxies. Potentially insecure (I was told so).
Have a look at the following links:

    http://ajaxpatterns.org/HTTP_Streaming
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(programming)

>         b) is ready for production? is somebody using it in production?

For me it was more an experiment with Seaside and it worked out pretty
well. I don't know of anybody using it in production.

>         c) how can I use the WAListener and have my "normal" applications
> also working

There is no way around WAListener. WATask and all code that sends
#returnResponse: during the rendering does not work. This can be
easily avoided though, so I don't see much of a problem there. These
two limitations have been slightly improved in 2.8, but I don't know
if the Comet package is working there yet.

>         d) how can I use Comet and the WAKomEncoded39 encodind features as
> well?

Probably.

>         e) an aap which uses Comet should be horizontally scaled the same
> way as normal seaside applications? The techniques of Boris P. and Ramon
> Leon to scale Seaside apps are still valid with Comet?

Yes, but take care some load-balancer/proxies might not like open connections.

After all this is a hack that does a lot of bad things with HTTP that
this protocol was never designed for.

Lukas

-- 
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch